Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI & K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Rajeshwar Singh
Versus
Subrata Roy Sahara & Others
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 224 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010
Decided On : 09-12-2013
(b) Constitution of India - Articles 129 and 142 - Powers of Supreme Court in contempt matters - Not denuded, restricted or limited by Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or Rules or even the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 - None compliance of provisions of 1971 Act will not take away powers u/Art, 129. (Paras 21 and 22)
(1991) 4 SCC 406; (1994) Suppl. (1) SCC 718; - Relied upon
(1970) 3 SCC 98; (2010) 14 SCC 77; (2001) 6 SCC 735; (2010) 3 SCC 705 - Distinguished impliedly
(c) Constitution of India - Article 142 - Article 142 confers powers to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice - Conceived to meet situations which cannot be tackled by existing provisions of law. (Para 24)
(1996) 4 SCC 622 - Relied upon
(d) Constitution of India - Articles 129 and 142 - Petitioner invoking constitutional provisions under Articles 129 and 142 - Consent of Attorney General - Not necessary - Petitioner apprising the Court of difficulties faced by him in conducting investigations which is monitored by the Supreme Court - Court is duty bound to facilitate investigation and ensure that petitioner is not intimidated or pressured - Petition perfectly maintainable. (Paras 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
This case examines maintainability of the contempt petition.
Finding of the Court:
The petition is maintainable.
Result : Notices issued to respondents.
JUDGMENT
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. We may, at the outset, point out that, at this stage, we are only examining the maintainability of this contempt petition, on which arguments have been advanced by the learned senior counsels on either side. This contempt petition has been preferred under Article 129, 142 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 12 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.
2. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, submitted that this contempt petition is not maintainable since it has been filed without the consent of the Attorney General of India or other officer mentioned in Section 15 of the Act. Learned senior counsel submitted that neither the order of this Court dated 06.05.2011 nor the notice dated 23.05.2011 gives any indication of the nature of the criminal contempt to be defended by the respondent. Learned senior counsel further submitted that even the notice dated 23.05.2011 does not comply with Rule 6 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. Learned senior counsel also submitted that it does not mention whether it is a civil contempt or a criminal contempt. Learned senior counsel also submitted that there is nothing to show that the first respondent had any knowledge of this Court’s order dated 16.03.2011. Consequently, it cannot be said that there was any willful disobedience of that order. Further, such an allegation is not even raised in the notice. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of this Court in Aligarh Municipal Board and others v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and others (1970) 3 SCC 98. Learned senior counsel submitted that the order, on which disobedience is alleged to have been committed, is not within the knowledge of the respondent and he is not expected or bound to know the same from the media or newspapers. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that the burden to prove the knowledge is not on the alleged contemnors, as held by this Court in Bharat Steel Tubes Limited v. IFCI Limited (2010) 14 SCC 77.
3. Shri Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent, submitted that consent of the Attorney General is a pre-requisite to initiate contempt of court proceedings, which is not an empty formality. Learned senior counsel submitted that second respondent is not a party to any of the orders passed by this Court and he has not violated any order passed by this court. Further, it was also pointed out that even the notice is silent in what manner the second respondent has violated the order passed by this Court. Learned senior counsel submitted that even the powers conferred on this Court to issue suo motu notice is also limited and could be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the Judgments of this Court in J.R. Parashar, Advocate and others v. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate and others (2001) 6 SCC 735 and Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 3 SCC 705.
4. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent, also refuted all the allegations raised against the third respondent and submitted that he has nothing to do with the service tenure in the Enforcement Directorate or the cases relating to 2G Scam. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the contempt petition itself is not maintainable.
5. Shir K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the C.B.I., submitted that the contempt alleged is not merely a criminal contempt but also a civil contempt. Learned senior counsel referred to Section 2(b) of the Act and submitted that there has been willful disobedience of the directions of this Court by the respondents jointly and severally. Learned senior counsel also referred to Section 2(c)(iii) of the Act and submitted that the attempt of the respondents is to interfe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
